No One Can Find ISPs Who Have Agreed To RIAA's 3 Strikes Plan

from the keep-looking dept

It's been a few weeks since the WSJ announced that the RIAA was supposedly dropping its lawsuit strategy, in favor of a backroom deal with ISPs, negotiated under dubious circumstances by NY's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, whereby those ISPs would start cutting off connections from those accused (not found guilty) of file sharing. However, since then, we've heard from a variety of ISPs who don't like the plan, and Wired went on a wild goose chase trying to find a single major ISP that has agreed to the plan and came up empty. Of course, most of them refused to comment. The only one who said anything straight up was Verizon -- who had earlier confirmed that it had no interest in doing a deal with the RIAA. The big cable companies and AT&T have shown some interest in the past -- but now refuse to admit that an agreement has been worked out.

The big question is why?

If this is such a great deal for consumers, as Cuomo and the RIAA insist, then why wouldn't an ISP want to step right up and proudly admit to such a deal? Obviously, it's because they know that such a deal is a sham, based on no legal reasoning, that will harm their position in the market and piss off customers. The RIAA will likely claim that no deals have been announced because the details haven't been finalized -- but again, that makes no sense. We've been questioning from the beginning why these negotiations haven't been more open. And with record labels like Warner Music and EMI insisting that they want to be seen as more open and willing to hold a "conversation" with critics, the fact that no one will talk openly about this backroom deal shows what a bunch of liars they are again. They don't want an open conversation. They want the government and ISPs to protect their business model, and they've convinced Andrew Cuomo to fall for it.

Musicians are sleezy idiots

Do not buy an RIAA or any music association performers works as a protest. Please do this and the problem of the stupid file sharing stuff will go away when said musicians and associations go broke because they deserve it.

It is already happening

I have a friend with Cox internet and he has gotten two notices already. They told him one more and he would have his service canceled. I think Techdirt should poll readers to see if any of them have gotten notices and identify the ISPs that way.

Am I understanding this correctly? The RIAA says it will stop taking the cases to the courts, but it will still be doing the same false accusations based on the same false proof. So basically, now that they're loosing their legal position (in the only case to ever get to the courts) they want to deal with private companies to do their dirty work before anyone notices that what they are doing is actually illegal? How is this better than taking the cases to the court where someone will actually judge on the merits of the claims? I know most of the cases are actually settled out of the courts, but there's still a small chance that the correct process will be followed in that scenario, whereas in the "private company shutting off your service because they thought you might possibly be making available copyrighted work" there's absolutely no chance for the users.

Show me the list

I want to see the list of those who are exempt from the three strikes - kick em to the curb - back room conspiracy.

I'll bet a cup of coffee that the arrangement stipulates the RIAA and friends can not be taken off the internet when accused of copyright infringement. They will be accused because 1) they are indeed guilty and 2) for the fun of it.

Go RIAA - If they only had a brain they would be dangerous!

So let me get this straight the RIAA wants ISPs to ban customers who are suspected of file sharing. The thing I don’t get is why any ISP would want to agree to this. As they can already clearly cancel/deny and ban any customer for suspected file sharing as it is (read your contract). So if they already have the power to cut off their own customers (effectively signing them up with a competitor) and they are not using it now, they will not agree to pass that power onto a third party that has no interest in their bottom line (and could be argued has a vested interest in destroying them).

Re: It is already happening

Sounds like your friend needs to grow a pair and stand up against these bastards.
Call them on their crap. They have nothing to back it up.
He yells loud enough high up the food chain enough, they will start to get the picture.

I got a notice in the uk from bethere. Strangest wording of any official email I've ever had. Apparently there was a complaint about a file I know we downloaded, but nothing other than us been informed of that.

Re: Re: Re: You can bet on ComCast

You can most certainly be greedy, monopolistic, and stupid. We have a word for that already: RIAA. Comcast is smart enough to know that losing customers would be a bad thing for their greedy side, even if the RIAA can't figure that out.

Re:

I know in PA the largest cable provider for the entire state is Blue Ridge Cable. They outsource the cable connection to PenTeleData. I got a notice a few months ago that they recieved a letter from RIAA and that I had to call in. When I called and said I never downloaded that movie they told me to be sure to change my password on my router and that another complaint will result in my account being terminated! So with them it's 2 strikes and your out. Not having real competition blows!

The backroom discussion Mike is so curious about....

It will never be for the public eyes because the RIAA hates themselves in it and the ISPs don't want to look rude and intolerant...

RIAA: So basically, we tell our customers do it our way or fuck off. We're like 99% sure that it works because nobody has told us it doesn't. Will you help Major ISP?

[A long pause, during which the Major ISP has to figure out the RIAA just made such a request. Frustrated, sighing, and completely caught off guard because he has to come up with a response to such an asinine plea, the suspenseful silence is broken.]

MISP: That's fine and dandy if your dumb ass thinks that telling the customer to fuck off is going to make you money. But you're all dumber than we thought if you think making our service shittier and driving away subscribers is going to help us at all. Hell, you may not even have a brain when you consider the fact that you want us to TERMINATE certain subscribers. We don't care what they do, their money is always good here. I mean, where the fucking hell did you go to business school? Did you even prepare for this meeting? Was there at all a brainstorming session? Have you typed this plan into youtube and listened to yourself with the audio playback feature so you could realize how fucking stupid you are? Or are you just wasting our time as a joke? You've got twenty seconds to get out of this building before we release the hounds.

their counting on no one sueing for lose of service since its only $50.00 a month

some one said it in a post ealier here
"their losing in court so their trying to do it this way"
well if they can't beat you in court now
shouldn't you be able to sue them and the ISP for cutting off your account without due process
and if they cut off lots of people and most sue wouldn't that cost them more time and money than they want to put out
and here's one I've never seen brought up cassettes, vcr tapes , no one got bent when people were taping stuff with them..............I find it funny
also I've D/L a lot of movies that say property of [warner bro. , ect....] [I deleted them at once] but my point is this instead of going after the folks D/L the movie[human nature to get free stuff] shouldn't they be cleaning their own house since a movie that say's property of........ had to come from a insider
personaly I kinda see the MPAA being mad they only make money on you going to the movies and buying DVD's and us making our own cost them , but not as much as they say.
The RIAA should on the other hand be happy we D/L their damn music , while I'll admit some money can be made off CD's the artist make the most of their money off concerts us D/L just promotes the music so we want to go to the concert

but as far as money in general both actors studios and music artist , sport stars for sure ,make way to much money for what they do
I mean lets face it those who work hard to make the world we live in run right daily and those who do the crappy every day jobs get paid shit
while those who play ,get messed up all day , and basicly have fun most of the time get paid millions!!!!
am I the only one who see's something wrong with that ???
and be fore some one chimes in , but sport stars earn their money
1] they are getting paid to play a game[that we all played in school]
2]if they didn't get stupid they have a college degree[ no claiming my knee will go out I need millions to fall back on]

of course most sport stars are stupid assholes who rushed through school blind in a hurry to get to the big bucks

all in all the RIAA and MPAA have unrealistic goals

and artist and stars[music , sport , movie] are over paid self centered ass holes who need took down a notch any way

Re: Re: The backroom discussion Mike is so curious about....

Re: their counting on no one sueing for lose of service since its only $50.00 a month

I think most of your argument falls apart when you realize that to get service you have to agree to their ToS, and part of their ToS says they can change their ToS, and they're changing their ToS to say that they can cut you off for being accused as a file sharer. You can't sue someone solely because you agreed to their crappy contract and they followed through on their ToS.

very interesting

I'd like to believe that ISP's are sensibly ignoring the completely bullshit RIAA, but maybe they are doing secret deals. Who knows?

This Cuomo moron is misguided, as usual. He's like his father - intelligent in some ways, but just stupid enough not to know where he's completely wrong. (Gee, I think I just described 97% of politicians). And now he wants to be Senator in NY. No thanks.

Re: Re: their counting on no one sueing for lose of service since its only $50.00 a month

But you could sue the RIAA for having you falsely removed from your ISP and possibly liable. This situation becomes more risky when someones job depends on the connection. More so if the location that was cut off is a medical institution and due to this the last bit of information on a patient is not received and the patient is given a medication that causes a known allergic reaction and kills or shuts down a critical organ. This now results in a law suite and malpractice insurance will increase, ect.

Time Warner suspended my internet before the holidays (around the 20th) and wouldn't resume it until yesterday due to downloading torrents (they caught me twice). Apparently, one more violation will terminate my account. Yippe!

Re: very interesting

Re: very interesting

If an ISP wanted to deal with this and not actually do anything they could just do the following.

As requested per RIAA we will remove user X from IP 72.XXX.XX.XXX. The IP address will be reissued to some user once revoked.

The original user at 72.XXX.XX.XXX tries to access the internet with no luck goes to Cable Modem and router unplugs both and then starts them back up. Cable Modem gets the notice IP 72.XXX.XX.XXX in use and requests a new IP is automatically issued. So user X on IP 72.XXX.XX.XXX has been from IP 72.XXX.XX.XXX but now is user X on IP 72.ZZZ.ZZZ.ZZZ

So the RIAA gets to "ban" someone from the internet. The ISP keeps its customers and shuts up the RIAA. The user still has a internet connection.

The ISPs are attempting to work out a compromise with the RIAA now in order to avoid costly regulation in the future. With the passage of the Pro-IP bill and with a new "Copyrite Czar" coming in under the Obama Presidency, the regulatory environment has dramatically shifted in favor of the RIAA. If it weren't for the passage of the Pro-IP bill, the RIAA would still be suing people. It's not about the ISPs wanting to cooperate or prevent outright theft of music. Rather, it's about the ISP looking out after their own interests. The last thing an ISP wants to deal with is the federal authorities.

mm, nice try

"The big cable companies and AT&T have shown some interest in the past -- but now refuse to admit that an agreement has been worked out."

I understand that they're reluctant to admit anything. If authentic, this email, sent by AT&T to a customer about copyright infringement, looks like they've done more than "shown some interest in the past." Agreement or no agreement:

I wish they would sue me...

Maybe one reason ISPs are not biting is that this arrangement, unlike that proposed in EU (which requires a law binding ISPs to perform this function) could well prove to be illegal (theories of privacy, public airways? I don't know -anything is possible in the Common Law if you have a brainy lawyer at the helm) and at best contractually unenforceable. And then there's the (previously mentioned on this site) issue of competition among ISPs. A promise that one won't play ball with RIAA could be a very competitive tool.

ISP response

This is nothing new. Several years ago (way before all this curent business blew up) my UK ISP at the time took it upon themselves to send me an e-mail, suggesting that I had been downloading copyrighted material and threatened to give me the chop. Eventually, they went under themselves and good riddance!